DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined in this application
This communication is the first action on the merits
Claims 1-15 are rejected herein
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 7/2/2024 and 1/24/2024 and reviewed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the movable clamp element" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This may be amended to “the clamp element.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first clamping zone" in line 1 of page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This may be amended to “a first clamping zone.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the " in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This may be amended to “a second clamping zone.”
In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “a stack of fewer than 12 spring washers”, and the claim also recites 2 to 8 spring washers which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "in that the annular shoulder" in line 17 of page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This may be amended to “in that the internal annular shoulder.”
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear whether the limitation “preferably several pin housings each comprising a movable part” is positively claimed or not.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "facing the shoulder" in line 3 of page 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This may be amended to “facing the internal annular shoulder.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation "via the annular shoulder" in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This may be amended to “via the internal annular shoulder.”
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear whether the limitation “preferably being held between a head of the holding means and the pressure washer arranged in the head of the rotary manipulation member” is positively claimed or not.
Claims 2-5, 8-9, and 13-15 are rejected based on their respective dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacy (U.S. Pat. No. US 11497579 B2) in view of Dupont (U.S. Pat. No. US 6082941 A) and further in view of Swinderman (German Pat. No. DE 112015003228 T5).
Regarding claim 1, Lacy teaches a medical device(400) ) for supplying gas(medical device could be one that supplies gas) comprising a shell(402), an outer wall(outer walls of 402) and a fixing device (102), arranged on the outer wall (attached to outer wall of 402) of said shell, for fixing the latter to an elongate support (attaches to an elongated support) fixing device comprising - a clamp body (106) and a clamp element (110) movable by pivoting relative to each other(the two pieces move by pivoting up and down relative to one another), - at least part of the clamp body being configured as a first jaw (114) and at least part of the movable clamp element being configured as a second jaw (110 facing 114), said first and second jaws being arranged face to face in order to form a clamp (110 and 114 face each other to form a clamp), and - a rotary manipulation member (112 and 108), which can be actuated in rotation by a user(112 may be actuated by a user), cooperating with the clamp element , when actuated, in order to move the clamp element with respect to the clamp body and move the first jaw towards or away from the second jaw (110 and 114 move towards or away from each other with actuation of 112), and wherein: - the rotary manipulation member comprises a head (112) intended to be grasped manually by the user, and an actuation rod (108) comprising a threaded portion (108 is threaded), and - an internally threaded actuation part cooperates with the threaded portion of the actuation rod and with the clamp element in order to effect the pivoting of the clamp element relative to the clamp body (12) in such a way as to move said first and second jaws (15, 16) towards or away from each other, (108 is threaded internally within 106 and cooperates with the rest of 108 in order to move 110 and effect the pivoting up and down of 110 relative to 106 so 110 and 114 can move towards or away from each other)
Lacy does not teach the rotary member further comprises a torque- limiting system arranged in the head of the rotary manipulation member, said torque-limiting system comprising a stack of spring washers cooperating with a pressure washer. Dupont teaches a torque- limiting system arranged in a rotary manipulation member(21, 24 and 27), said torque-limiting system comprising a stack of spring washers(stack 26). Lacy and Dupont are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing twisting means to do work on an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the torque-limiting system of Dupont in the head of rotary manipulation member of Lacy. The motivation would have been to tighten the handle without fear of overstressing the system, as is pointed out in Dupont(column 2 lines 35-39).
Lacy as modified does not teach the stack of spring washers cooperating with a pressure washer. Swinderman teaches an Elastomeric Holding Device for Connecting elements which functions as a torque-limiting fastener. Within the invention, it teaches a spring washer(304) cooperating with a pressure washer(302). Lacy and Swinderman are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing twisting means to do work on an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the pressure washer of Swinderman with the stack of spring washers of Dupont in the head of rotary manipulation member of Lacy. The motivation would have been to maintain the clamping force on the spring washer stack over time.
Regarding claim 2, Lacy as modified teaches the apparatus according to Claim 1, characterized in that the clamp body (106, Lacy) and the clamp element (110, Lacy) are carried by a support plate(104, Lacy) said support plate being fixed to the outer wall of said shell (docking member 104 attaches to the medical devices 400 on their outer wall, Lacy).
Regarding claim 3, Lacy as modified teaches the apparatus according to Claim 1, characterized in that the threaded portion(108 threads, Lacy) of the actuation rod (108, Lacy) of the rotary manipulation member (112 and 108, Lacy) is configured to move within the thread of the internally threaded actuation part when the user applies a clockwise or anti-clockwise screwing movement to the head of the rotary manipulation member (108 is threaded internally within 106 when the user applies a clockwise or anti-clockwise screwing movement on 112, Lacy).
Regarding claim 4, Lacy as modified teaches the apparatus according to Claim 1, characterized in that the internally threaded actuation part is configured to be moved in translation when the actuation rod of the rotary manipulation member acts on the internally threaded actuation part (internal threaded piece moves down in translation relative to the jaw portion of 110 as the rotary manipulation member 112 acts on it).
Regarding claim 5, Lacy as modified teaches the apparatus according to Claim 1, characterized in that the internally threaded actuation part(labeled A below) is configured to produce an angular movement of the clamp element(110) relative to the clamp body (106) (angular movement is shown as the clamp element moves up and down relative to the clamp body as angles 1, 2, and 3 below), and a movement of the second jaw (110 facing 114) towards or away from the first jaw (114), depending on the direction of actuation of the actuation rod(108) by the user, when the actuation rod of the rotary manipulation member acts on the internally threaded actuation part (the second jaw moves towards or away from the first jaw depending on the direction of the actuation by the user).
PNG
media_image1.png
629
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Lacy as modified teaches the apparatus according to Claim 1, characterized in that the first clamping zone(shown as B below) of the first jaw (114) has a semi-circular profile, and the second clamping zone (labeled C below) of the second jaw (top of 110 facing 114) has a linear profile, or vice versa(B has a semi-circular profile and C has a linear profile).
PNG
media_image2.png
694
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Lacy as modified teaches the apparatus according to Claim 1, characterized in that the torque-limiting system comprises a stack of fewer than 12 spring washers, preferably from 2 to 8 spring washers (7 spring washers (26) are shown used in Fig. 7; Dupont, in addition Dupont teaches the ”number of disc washers…are selected to produce a desired bolt clamping load” see column 4 lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 8, Lacy as modified teaches the apparatus according to Claim 1, characterized in that the stack of spring washers (26; Dupont) presses against the pressure washer (302; Swinderman) arranged in the head of the rotary manipulation member (located within 112; Lacy).
Regarding claim 9, Lacy as modified teaches the apparatus according to Claim 1, characterized in that the head (112) of the rotary manipulation member (112 and 108) comprises an internal annular shoulder (internal shoulder 24, labeled D below) arranged between the pressure washer(labeled F below, where the pressure washer 302 of Swinderman would be located) and a base element (labeled E below) integral with the actuation rod (integral with actuation rod 16).
PNG
media_image3.png
280
512
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Lacy as modified teaches the apparatus according to Claim 9, characterized in that the base element (E above) comprises at least one blind housing (labeled G above) formed on an upper annular surface (formed on the upper surface of E) of the base element situated facing the shoulder (faces the shoulder 24 labeled D above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 12-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM DONALD JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-9214. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F between 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/W.D.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights